Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Two notes here that I think are very important. First, while that quote of James Madison is correct, it was a) not the last word on the subject (in fact, he lost the argument to Hamilton, who "argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare.

Madison wrote the general Welfare clause, therefore it is his comments on it should be how it is interpreted. That the Butler decision chose to use Hamilton's opinion of it and not what Madison intended it to be makes the decision of questionable Constitutional validity. The Butler decision was made during the New Deal which when FDR ignored our Constitution.
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
That, my friend, is an ideologue's conclusion, not a valid argument. "I disagree, therefore, you are wrong." Not exactly how discussion proceeds.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/297/1
"Since the foundation of the Nation, sharp differences of opinion have persisted as to the true interpretation of the phrase. Madison asserted it amounted to no more than a reference to the other powers enumerated in the subsequent clauses of the same section; that, as the United States is a government of limited and enumerated powers, the grant of power to tax and spend for the general national welfare must be confined to the enumerated legislative fields committed to the Congress. In this view, the phrase is mere tautology, for taxation and appropriation are, or may be, necessary incidents of the exercise of any of the enumerated legislative powers. Hamilton, on the other hand, maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate,..."
The above is a quote from United States v. Butler. It proves that the Supreme Court used Hamilton's opinion of the general Welfare clause, not what the author of it, Madison, said it should be. Citing facts, as I have repeatedly done, is a valid argument. Pontificating with your opinion, as you have done NW Ponderer, is an ideologue's conclusion.


Edited by Senator Hatrack (08/28/19 01:43 AM)
_________________________
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary